Subject: Re: CVSup collections for a NetBSD CVS tree
To: Greg A. Woods <>
From: Jonathan Stone <jonathan@DSG.Stanford.EDU>
List: current-users
Date: 05/04/1999 11:46:45
>Jonathan *you* (and your fellow portmasters) are not responsible for
>porting M3 or any other add-on package.  Those who want it are.  That's
>how a volunteer project (should) work.

No, Greg.  

First, if this is an official way of disributing netbsd sources, it is
not an ``add-on pakage''.

Second: as a non-developer, just how do you know what portmasters end
up expected to do?

>Your job as portmaster, as I understand it, is to deal with kernel (and
>possibly *system* compiler) issues, not add-on packages.  If portmasters
>were responsible for all add-on packages not only would their job be far
>too onerous for a volunteer position, but there wouldn't be any need for

Stop telling lies, Greg. It's not a `package'.  First, it's a modula-3
compiler, plus the run-time; it's actually compiling CVSup itself.  We
dont have *any* modula-3 ports either in the tree or in pkgsrc.
We'd need those before it becomes a real official `service' for
distributing NetBSD source.

(Look carefully in the bit where NetBSD says we do development on our
own machines and run our own sources.)

If it's an ``official'' solution, it goes in the tree. Just like sup.
That means the compiler goes in the tree.
That means we have to support it.

>Besides, in the case of CVSup the only people who will really want to
>use it, at least initially, are people who are most likely capable of
>doing the M3 port themselves, and are also people who are most likely
>*not* restricted to running it on an unsupported machine (though some
>might claim they are for political reasons! :-).

No, Greg. How can I get you to *listen* when I say that I'd *like* to
use CVSup myself, but I can't, because the implementation is (for
NetBSD) a crock?

If you want to run so mething `unofficial', thats a different story,
but you've been quite upfront about wanting to make this an
``official'' service.  As I see it, That means *you* have to get
modua-l3 ported to some reaosnable number of NetBSD platforms.
Chris Demetriou (former portmaster and former Core member) suggested
half the CPU architectures that NetBSD supports.
Sounds reasonable to me.

You want a modula-3 based package to become part of the way we do
business, you bring modula-3 up to snuff on NetBSD.

Why dont we drop this, until you've actually done that?